Le Québec à la conquête de Shakespeare : traduction, théâtre et société
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shakespeare was a latecomer on the Quebec stage. Relatively ignored until after the Second World War, his plays began to be translated in the late 1960s. However, it wasn’t until the turn of the 21st century that Shakespeare finally began to be translated and performed regularly. The 1988-1989 season, commonly known as the “ Shakespeare spring” coincided with the period in which Quebec theatre evolved and became a socially autonomous field. Measuring themselves against Shakespeare and his rich narrative and stylistic devices, authors and translators contributed to reviving a literary language on stage, long discarded in favour of vernacular language. In addition to the social context and the theatrical field, examples taken from the main translators of Shakespeare (J. L. Roux, A. Maillet, M. Garneau and N. Chaurette) serve to shed light on the factors that influence the selection and the processing of the very same plays, such as the translator’s personal itinerary, or even the audience and the place of the performance. The opposition between translation and adaptation is revisited in the light of recent works on the definitions and practices of translation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".